Policy —

What’s next for Jammie Thomas-Rasset?

Jammie Thomas-Rasset has at least six options for moving forward after the …

Now that Jammie Thomas-Rasset owed $1.92 million to the recording industry for sharing 24 songs on KaZaA back in 2005, the case might seem to be closed. In reality, though, Thomas-Rasset still has numerous options for dealing with the verdict. Let's run them down.

Pay it

According to Thomas-Rasset, paying the $1.92 million damage award is simply impossible. As a brownfield development coordinator for the Mille Lacs band of the Ojibwe, Thomas-Rasset doesn't bring the cash home in wheelbarrows. "Like squeezing blood from a turnip," is how she described any attempt to collect on the judgment.

Settle

According to Thomas-Rasset's testimony during the trial, she could have settled back in 2005 for $5,000. The RIAA says that the amount was somewhere between $3,000-5,000; more importantly, it remains willing to settle the case.

Our understanding is that Thomas-Rasset has simply been unwilling to negotiate a settlement; she would rather pay nothing, continually claiming innocence. A judicially-ordered settlement conference before the trial produced nothing.

Kiwi Camara, Thomas-Rasset's lawyer, said yesterday that she would examine a settlement offer, but he wouldn't commit to anthing. Certainly, when facing a $1.92 million award, $5,000 looks like a bargain—the amount wouldn't even cover the plane tickets for recording industry attorneys to attend the trial.

But if you feel that the record industry is "extorting" you, this is no doubt an unappetizing plan.

Bankruptcy

The sheer, outrageous size of the damage award in the case is already prompting calls to change the law.

Bankruptcy is of course an option, but there are potential complications: not all debts can actually be discharged in bankruptcy court. Back in 2007, the EFF prepared a brief report on the issue, intended for lawyers who were arguing exactly these types of cases.

The report pointed out that copyright infringement judgments can be discharged, unless the infringement was ruled to be a "willful and malicious injury." (Note that although Thomas-Rasset was found liable for "willful" copyright infringement, this is a separate standard that requires a separate judicial ruling on her state of mind.)

The issue doesn't come up often with relation to copyright infringement judgments against individuals, of course, so it's not clear how this might unfold. The takeaway, though, is that clearing the debt in bankruptcy court is possible, but not guaranteed. Should Thomas-Rasset take this route and fail to have the debt discharged, settlement would suddenly look like a super-appealing alternative to having wages garnished for the rest of one's life.

The constitutional challenge

Though the case is "over," it's not actually over. The jury has made its ruling on the facts of the case, but Judge Michael Davis can still run on matters of law. One key matter, made even more relevant by the massive $80,000 per-song damage award, is the constitutionality of such a damage award. Is it an "excessive fine" under the Eighth Amendment?

That amendment says that "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Camara has already indicated that he plans to contest the award on these grounds unless Thomas-Rasset takes a settlement.

Would it work? Recall that after the first trial, Judge Davis took his opportunity to assail that verdict with these words: "Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent."

Given that that penalty is now eight times greater than it was in that case, we can certainly expect Judge Davis to give the issue a close look. Davis, the first African-American judge to head up the Minnesota US District Court, is no lightweight justice who was just fitted for his robe. He was appointed to a lifetime seat on the federal bench back in 1994 and has already served a term on the nation's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—the most secret chamber in the country.

He showed no emotion at all during the verdict yesterday, of course, but based on his previous comments about this case, it's hard not imagine him holding out hope that a well-argued set of legal challenges comes his way and allows him at least some discretion in mitigating the award.

Appeal

Such motions would take place within the federal courts, but Thomas-Rasset could also appeal the entire case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, too. Federal appellate cases are generally high-profile, high-cost affairs, but the legal team of Camara and Sibley have indicated their continued willingness to represent Thomas-Rasset.

Change the law

The sheer, outrageous size of the damage award in the case is already prompting calls to change the law. Even among the Ars commentariat, plenty of readers believe that Thomas-Rasset did infringe the 24 copyrights at issue, but there was near universal disdain for the jury and for the law that allowed such an award.

But the outrage isn't confined to the blogosphere. The Washington lobby group CCIA, backed by AMD, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and others, calls the verdict "ridiculous."

"Our copyright laws are overbroad, being misused and enforced with a zeal out of proportion to common sense," said CEO Ed Black. "When Sony BMG massively and illegally distributed music CDs containing spyware that compromised individual users' computer security and infected government and military networks worldwide, the FTC only ordered them in 2007 to reimburse end-users up to $150 for computer damages. Yet when Ms. Thomas shared 24 songs belonging to Sony BMG and other labels on the Internet, she was penalized $80,000 for each single track."

He concluded, "Copyright law was created in a different era for different business models. It needs to be reformed."

Judge Davis feels the same way and has already "implored" Congress to "amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer?to-peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court."

University of California law professor Pam Samuelson, an expert on statutory damages and copyright law, also called for reform in a fascinating paper released in April 2009.

In reference to the first Thomas-Rasset judgment, Samuelson concluded, "Some jurors in the Thomas case wanted to award $750 per infringed song, while others argued for $150,000 per song; why they compromised on $9250 per song is a mystery. In today’s world where the average person in her day-to-day life interacts with many copyrighted works in a way that may implicate copyright law, the dangers posed by the lack of meaningful constraints on statutory damage awards are particularly acute."

One key suggestion for reform: allowing judges to revise damage awards to below the current $750 minimum threshold in such cases.

Had the amount been a "mere" $750 a song, for an $18,000 total fine, the Thomas-Rasset case would have offered little incentive to reform the law. But when the first of the RIAA's 30,000+ actions goes to trial and the plaintiffs emerge with a $1.92 million award... legislators may take notice.

There are 2 unconstitutionality arguments, the 5th amendment and the 8th amendment. You mentioned only the 8th amendment. My brief submitted on behalf of FSF in SONY v. Cloud discusses the other, which is more certain of being followed by the Court.

Additionally there is a good non-constitutional argument for reducing the verdict to $750 per infringed work, based on well established copyright case law that statutory damages must be reasonably related to the actual damages, and usually upholding a ratio of 2:1 to 4:1. Under that thinking the award needs to be reduced to $750 per infringed work. (By the way, it appears that some of the mp3 files in question are on the same album; if that's so they would constitute a single work).

We certainly can't know now but history may show this to have been the best possible outcome. I don't want to get into defending that actions of Thomas-Rasset because I can't. OTOH, everyone knows or at least should know that the vast majority of music downloaded from peer-to-peer networks doesn't result in a lost sale. Yes, some sales are lost but downloading is dominated by a "curiosity thing" IMHO.

Somehow I think this jury verdict is the last thing the recording industry wanted to see. It's only going to put a much higher profile on a subject that has already generated more negative publicity for the industry than they ever hoped to get. Changes will be coming where some sanity is introduced into the whole process.

Originally posted by RayBeckerman:Additionally there is a good non-constitutional argument for reducing the verdict to $750 per infringed work, based on well established copyright case law that statutory damages must be reasonably related to the actual damages, and usually upholding a ratio of 2:1 to 4:1. Under that thinking the award needs to be reduced to $750 per infringed work. (By the way, it appears that some of the mp3 files in question are on the same album; if that's so they would constitute a single work).

Not sure of the legal nuances in play here, but this is a reasonable outcome. While the actual damages are impossible to prove, the $750 figure is MUCH closer (and probably on the high side as well) than $80K. Would Thomas not be responsible for the RIAA's legal fees in addition?

My understanding was that the losing party had to post a bond equal to the judgment, but 62(d) seems to say the bond most only be sufficient to cover opposing party's legal fees incurred by the appeal. (Other reading implies that this bond can be waived.)

At Ars Tecnica, Nate Andersen lays out the options for Jamie Thomas-Rasset now that she’s been found liable for damages near $2M for sharing 24 songs on KaZaA: settle, declare bankruptcy, or continue the fight. Since its clear she’s not going to pay, the interesting question is really whether she’ll continue the fight. Since she doesn’t have to pay the lawyers, I think its likely she will continue on her principles unless RIAA can convince her to stop.

Let’s look at this from RIAA’s perspective. How does this verdict affect the RIAA, and what is their next move?

First, let’s recognize that RIAA is not in this case for the money. The plaintiffs realize that they won’t colllect $2M here. They have probably spent more than that on the case already. Is this award good news for the recording industry?

Yes and no. Yes, in that they have had several days of headlines and blog postings about the $2M award. This is a far better deterrent than any advertising campaign telling people that copying music is as bad as shoplifting. Actually this says it’s a lot worse. If I stole 24 CD’s from Barnes & Noble, I’d get off a lot lighter.

But there’s a flip side. As Nate Andersen mentions, this award is so large it prompts outrage, and that outrage may be on a path to change the law… either through the apppeal or legislation. The deterrent effect could slip away, and the industry would be worse off than if the case had never happened.

So what’s the best move for RIAA? They need to stop further potential legal challenge to the case and to the size of the award, in a way that keeps the public deterred. RIAA needs a secret settlement that convinces Rasset to end the fight, and keeps the public worring about the huge penalties.

What would it take? RIAA would have to pay Rasset. Enough that she will never disclose the deal. $2M is probably just about the right amount.

I still find it amusing that people on sites like this think most people are aware or even care about this case. I doubt that any significant segment of the population outside of the 'tech community' has even heard of it, and of those that have, the verdict simply tells them that Thomas did something very wrong. This is not generating any significant outrage, and its unlikely that it prompts reform or changes to copyright.

Which is too bad. With a better and more sympathetic defendent it might have. Unfortunatly our standard got set with Jammie Thomas. Going forward, if anything, she has made it more difficult to create change due to the precedent that has been set here.

It's often suggested that statutory damages are necessary in cases like this, because the act of putting a song on a P2P network is a significantly wider scope of distribution than, say, simple shoplifting of a CD. Many more people are (potentially) receiving copies, and therefor the punishment should reflect that.

This falls apart, though, when you actually count the copies, especially in a situation like BitTorrent. If there are N people in a swarm fetching a file, then N copies have to be made. (N people)/(N copies) = one copy per-person, on average. In practice, this is not too far off from what I see in typical BitTorrent downloads. Getting a share-ratio much over 1.0 is relatively hard to do, and impossible if everybody tries.

So there simply cannot be this huge "magnification" effect that P2P supposedly has, and therefor the justification for statutory damages seems to fall apart. At least that's my interpretation - maybe someone can clarify?

Originally posted by pdkl95:So there simply cannot be this huge "magnification" effect that P2P supposedly has, and therefor the justification for statutory damages seems to fall apart. At least that's my interpretation - maybe someone can clarify?

That's a good point, and your interpretation is correct. Still, statutory damages make sense when the defendant is the first uploader, especially when he or she uploaded pre-release content. It can be very damaging, and the upper limit makes sense. But, of course, even the lower limit is disproportionate when we talk about an average filesharer and songs that cost $1.29.

Originally posted by reflex-croft:I still find it amusing that people on sites like this think most people are aware or even care about this case. I doubt that any significant segment of the population outside of the 'tech community' has even heard of it, and of those that have, the verdict simply tells them that Thomas did something very wrong. This is not generating any significant outrage, and its unlikely that it prompts reform or changes to copyright.

Which is too bad. With a better and more sympathetic defendent it might have. Unfortunatly our standard got set with Jammie Thomas. Going forward, if anything, she has made it more difficult to create change due to the precedent that has been set here.

see the reason nobody knows about it is becuase the media isn't reporting it becuase the media has a pony in this race. NBC isn't going to call out the RIAA. fankly i am supised that MS or any other IP holder has said anything negative.

Originally posted by reflex-croft:I still find it amusing that people on sites like this think most people are aware or even care about this case. I doubt that any significant segment of the population outside of the 'tech community' has even heard of it, and of those that have, the verdict simply tells them that Thomas did something very wrong. This is not generating any significant outrage, and its unlikely that it prompts reform or changes to copyright.

Which is too bad. With a better and more sympathetic defendent it might have. Unfortunatly our standard got set with Jammie Thomas. Going forward, if anything, she has made it more difficult to create change due to the precedent that has been set here.

My wife, who wouldn't know P2P from UPnP, read about the case in our local paper and expressed concern over the amount of the judgment.

Perhaps this is what it takes to get things changed...making awards so outrageous that even non-tech people start paying attention.

Originally posted by mikebell:But there’s a flip side. As Nate Andersen mentions, this award is so large it prompts outrage, and that outrage may be on a path to change the law… either through the apppeal or legislation. The deterrent effect could slip away, and the industry would be worse off than if the case had never happened.

So what’s the best move for RIAA? They need to stop further potential legal challenge to the case and to the size of the award, in a way that keeps the public deterred. RIAA needs a secret settlement that convinces Rasset to end the fight, and keeps the public worring about the huge penalties...

I don't see how this can be the case. What you're basically arguing is, the deterrent effect only exists because people fear the huge penalty. But as soon as the huge penalty is actually enforced, people get outraged. Then the huge penalty goes away. So the deterrent goes away. Then nobody is deterred.

But that basically means that the law is only effective as long as it's never enforced. So... how is it a law? A policy that's never enforced isn't a policy.

Suppose Store ABC has a return policy that it only accepts returns on items that are in "original sale condition." Allen buys a shirt, takes it home, and accidentally washes it with bleach. He takes it back to the store and says, "I only washed it once. It faded. I want my money back."

The idea is supposed to be that Store ABC won't take back fraudulent returns because the policy clearly states the items must be in "original sale condition." That pretty clearly means they don't take bad bleached, faded clothes. But suppose they take it back and say, "And don't tell your friends."

Well, what happens when Betty returns a shirt that's been worn and laundered? And what happens when Carl returns a shirt that's been stained, and Store ABC keeps taking those returns?

In reality, Store ABC has no deterrent because it can't show that it ever actually enforces the rule. The few times the rule is tested, the people who test it are rewarded. In order for a deterrent to have a real effect, it has to be credible. We can't say "There are huge penalties... but I'll give you one more chance" and then give "one more chance" fifteen or twenty times. At some point, the policy must be enforced.

Would love to see this go to the current Robert's supreme court. They have no problem to tell a 13 year old girl to suck it up when she's strip searched but I'm sure they'll be indignant at this woman and a CDs worth of music on her computer. They have no interest in protecting your rights unless your a megamillions dollar company.

I don't see how this can be the case. What you're basically arguing is, the deterrent effect only exists because people fear the huge penalty. But as soon as the huge penalty is actually enforced, people get outraged. Then the huge penalty goes away. So the deterrent goes away. Then nobody is deterred.

But that basically means that the law is only effective as long as it's never enforced. So... how is it a law? A policy that's never enforced isn't a policy.

People fear a huge penalty, but when the penalty gets so crazy large that you can't even comprehend the magnitude of the number, it loses meaning.

If you get fined for $30,000, you hurt. Bad. If you get fined for $30 zaptotillion, you know you're never going to pay it off, no one could ever collect, so it doesn't even matter. You won't even pay $30,000 on such an amount, why bother trying to pay it off? The amount is more than most people can hope to make in their lifetime. The award is absolutely meaningless. You might as well add a few zeros, it won't make a difference.

Originally posted by RayBeckerman:... well established copyright case law that statutory damages must be reasonably related to the actual damages, and usually upholding a ratio of 2:1 to 4:1. Under that thinking the award needs to be reduced to $750 per infringed work.

By that reasoning, would infringement of non-commercial works (e.g. GPL works) have a maximum liability of $750 (or whatever other minimum is set by statute)? Also, could you cite the case law you're referring to?

Originally posted by Hesacon:She should settle for $24, what those songs would cost if she bought them off itunes/amazon/walmart/etc.

No matter how she settles, the genie is out of the bottle. She will appeal on constitutionality grounds since the law team is jacking-off Pro Bono for their own reasons, and the legislature will sit-up and smell the coffee eventually.

Originally posted by Hesacon:She should settle for $24, what those songs would cost if she bought them off itunes/amazon/walmart/etc.

No matter how she settles, the genie is out of the bottle. She will appeal on constitutionality grounds since the law team is jacking-off Pro Bono for their own reasons, and the legislature will sit-up and smell the coffee eventually.

He concluded, "Copyright law was created in a different era for different business models. It needs to be reformed."

And with the appointment of a copyright "czar" and the hand the lobbying groups have in this, you'd probably get eternal copyright, because "Don't Stop Believing" is like the helpless woman who is going to be the victim of the Kazaa strangler.

Originally posted by AlbertJ:[QUOTE]We can't say "There are huge penalties... but I'll give you one more chance" and then give "one more chance" fifteen or twenty times. At some point, the policy must be enforced.

No, because of the exorbitant damages available and actually imposed, the law, for reasons commenters have pointed out, must not be enforced as applied. In order for policy to be enforced at some "point" in time, the legal damages will have to be reduced to a more defensible "point" in price.

Originally posted by mikebell:If I stole 24 CD’s from Barnes & Noble, I’d get off a lot lighter.

- $2 million = declare bankruptcy, deal with having no credit for seven years- Criminal conviction for theft = deal with the fact that for the rest of your life you won't be able to get any job better than barkeep, restaurant server or, if you're lucky, janitor

Originally posted by reflex-croft:Unfortunatly our standard got set with Jammie Thomas. Going forward, if anything, she has made it more difficult to create change due to the precedent that has been set here.

No, this is not accurate. Just because a court case goes a certain way does not implicitly mean that a precedent has been set. This was a federal circuit course decision - it's not binding precedent on courts in other jurisdictions. At most, plaintiffs in similar cases elsewhere will point to the Thomas case in hopes that the jury will be more sympathetic to their argument. That does not constitute a precedent.

---

quote:

Originally posted by Hesacon:Not for nothing though, I don't see her own lawyers working for free.

They already did for this retrial - she had two lawyers and their staff working pro bono - and they're only going to be more likely to continue to do so as the case progresses to higher courts.

Originally posted by mikebell:@ http://think4lib.com:Since she doesn’t have to pay the lawyers, I think its likely she will continue on her principles unless RIAA can convince her to stop.

If there's one thing this case has proven several times over, it's she clearly does not have principles. If she had principles, she'd have recognized her guilt in the first place and never taken the issue to trial.

She chose to go to trial, knowing full well that she was a thief. She gambled and she lost, as she should have. She chose to appeal, still knowing full well that she's a thief, and she lost again. She has wasted the time of the courts, taxpayers money, the money of the RIAA, and she continues to self-righteously hold out that she won't pay or settle. Fuck her.

One subtlety that people seem to miss when discussing the damages awarded to the RIAA (which do seem excessive, but she has had the opportunity to pay .25% of those damages and 10% of those damages and passed it up, so tough luck), is that these damages are awarded not for Mrs. Thomas-Rasset *downloading* 24 songs, but for making them available to others to download. The question isn't, what are 24 songs worth, it's 'how many people is Mrs. Thomas-Rasset likely to have distributed those 24 songs to, and how much is that worth?'. Apparently the jury decided it was likely she distributed those songs to a few hundred thousand people (again, seems a bit excessive, but she keeps going double-or-nothing with full knowledge that she's guilty, so fuck her).

Artists are not the ones benefiting from copyright, they're not the ones with the team of lawyers, they're not the ones doing little and expecting to be paid for it. Copyright became the way it is due to corporate greed. If it's made 150++ ugly and changed to be 25-- less ugly, it's still 125++ ugly. ie, scrapping it completely makes more sense compared to adopting a slightly less ugly version. It's already shown that those who buy albums are by-in-large those who download from outside of sanctioned channels. It's part and parcel for those who love music to seek it, as it is natural to reward creation of beauty. That seems to have little to do with court nonsense. These dinosaurs will die out, but while dieing they'll continue spew acid on innocents and their own industry.

At Ars Tecnica, Nate Andersen lays out the options for Jamie Thomas-Rasset now that she’s been found liable for damages near $2M for sharing 24 songs on KaZaA: settle, declare bankruptcy, or continue the fight. Since its clear she’s not going to pay, the interesting question is really whether she’ll continue the fight. Since she doesn’t have to pay the lawyers, I think its likely she will continue on her principles unless RIAA can convince her to stop.

Let’s look at this from RIAA’s perspective. How does this verdict affect the RIAA, and what is their next move?

First, let’s recognize that RIAA is not in this case for the money. The plaintiffs realize that they won’t colllect $2M here. They have probably spent more than that on the case already. Is this award good news for the recording industry?

Yes and no. Yes, in that they have had several days of headlines and blog postings about the $2M award. This is a far better deterrent than any advertising campaign telling people that copying music is as bad as shoplifting. Actually this says it’s a lot worse. If I stole 24 CD’s from Barnes & Noble, I’d get off a lot lighter.

But there’s a flip side. As Nate Andersen mentions, this award is so large it prompts outrage, and that outrage may be on a path to change the law… either through the apppeal or legislation. The deterrent effect could slip away, and the industry would be worse off than if the case had never happened.

I totally agree with your .for Thomas she will keep going since she already at the point of no return .

for RIAA , it's better to give in and try to persuade Thomas to give up . the most important part for RIAA is, to not end up with just few dollar reward. the current $2M reward is crossing the constitutional line and most like will change in appeal .

The judge thinks such amounts are ridiculous, other groups think its ridiculous too... "But the outrage isn't confined to the blogosphere. The Washington lobby group CCIA, backed by AMD, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and others, calls the verdict "ridiculous."

"Our copyright laws are overbroad, being misused and enforced with a zeal out of proportion to common sense," said CEO Ed Black. "When Sony BMG massively and illegally distributed music CDs containing spyware that compromised individual users' computer security and infected government and military networks worldwide, the FTC only ordered them in 2007 to reimburse end-users up to $150 for computer damages. Yet when Ms. Thomas shared 24 songs belonging to Sony BMG and other labels on the Internet, she was penalized $80,000 for each single track."

The punishment does not fit the crime, its wayyyy overboard and is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what the evidence. I still believe the Media Sentry evidence is faulty - had this been a criminal trial and not civil this evidence would have never been allowed or would have been beaten to death by the defense even on the chain of custody issues present of which there are many and this is the reason why these are civil and not criminal cases. If the intent of the RIAA is to really stop or curb infringment then why not go with a criminal case? They aren't interested in the criminal side because they know their evidence would never make it in a criminal case.

It doesn't matter if she lied or not, it doesn't matter if she did do it. Its 24 songs, just 24 and thats all...it wasn't any 1700 (or what ever the number was people keep throwing around) she was accused of infringing, it was just 24 and thats all she was accused of infringing and thats all she was found liable for 'wilfully' infringing, and there was no 'malicious injury' liability found.

It would be different if she were some sort of criminal mastermind that ran a massive piracy/criminal/terrorist organization but thats not the case as much as people want to think otherwise and relate her small bit of infringment to the overall ills and effects of the piracy issue as if she is personally responsible in some way for all of it. Her little bit of infringment amounted to nothing in the greater scheme especially when the RIAA says that 'millions' were sharing at the same time, a point I think the defense should have expanded upon and made them prove to show that she is probably one of the smaller fish in a larger pond at the very least. The whole thing about the IP address should have been expanded upon some more also, if there are two people in the presence of a computer with a specifc IP address then how do you know which one is actually using the computer at any one time unless you physically see them using the computer? The user name proves nothing other then there was an account with that name, big deal. Anyone could have been actually using the computer and doing the deed. Most web sites with forums have a thing that you can check to keep you logged in, so anyone using that computers browser could go to that web site and eaisly get into that forum and the same is true for many file sharing applications. Oh there is just so much more that should have been expanded upon.

I don't think she is some sort of poster child to be used for stirring resentment against the RIAA (and for infringment) in any way, but that is exactly what has happened. Even other legitimate groups with a lot more experience at this think so. The RIAA is now pictured as the great ogre who eats your young, and rightfully so because their actions have shown exactly that and I think thats part of what this case has bought out. The RIAA could have come out looking much better if they had claimed a reasonable loss, then it would have looked simply like a victim being made whole again as in any lawsuit. Instead they don't claim a loss, and the lables don't even know there was a loss, as part of some plan to exploit the misuderstandings of the law by a panel of juriours. Even the judge who does understand the law thinks differently. The RIAA's actions are damaging the lables and they need to serious think about reigning them in.

Maybe its all part of some plan to fight the constitutionality of these types of cases or their awards, I can see that happening. If these types of awards are found to be unconstitutional then it would pull the rug out from under the RIAA. There would be no more incentive for them to go to fishing for such small fish.

I seriously doubt the authors of the copyright laws could have forseen the laws being misused or exploited in such an abusive way as the RIAA has done. The laws were intended to make a victim whole again for their losses, the RIAA did not claim any loss and their own lable executive said under oath and in testimony that he could not even give a loss. Despite the RIAA implication they don't want to appear vindictive, this is exactly how they appear and its just not the many disconnected anonymous people on the internet that think so either.

Originally posted by reflex-croft:I still find it amusing that people on sites like this think most people are aware or even care about this case. I doubt that any significant segment of the population outside of the 'tech community' has even heard of it, and of those that have, the verdict simply tells them that Thomas did something very wrong. This is not generating any significant outrage, and its unlikely that it prompts reform or changes to copyright.

Which is too bad. With a better and more sympathetic defendent it might have. Unfortunatly our standard got set with Jammie Thomas. Going forward, if anything, she has made it more difficult to create change due to the precedent that has been set here.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Jammie Thomas-Rasset is hardly the poster child you want for the poor hapless victim of RIAA that you want portrayed.

In a thread at Ars, a long time ago, others where crowing about the previous judges misstep in jury instruction. I was on the side that she infringed (which was stoopid) and then decided to not settle (stooopid with three oh's).

I was fanned back from the plate by the rabid majority here. I posted that I would wait for this trials outcome. Eat crow pie boys.

Originally posted by jinjuku:She didn't download 24 songs. She shared out 24 songs and made a potential for 1000's of people to get a copy. I hope America doesn't keep producing dolt's like you.

No, she shared 24 songs and made it possible for one single entity to get a copy and that was Media Sentry. That was the only infringment she was actually accused of, that Media Sentry was able to get a copy and thats what was presented into evidence. There was no evidence that 1000's of others did so. The RIAA in a statement somewhere before the retrial made a comment that there were 'millions' of others sharing yet there was no evidence to prove that. She made them available to one entity and one entity only according the evidence and that was Media Sentry. So she did not share them with 1000's of others according to the evidence.

Only implication would indicate a possiblity for sharing with 1000's of others, and implication is not evidence.

Implication and potential does not = evidence. If it does in your mind then tell us exactly how many others got a copy other then Media Sentry and what exactly are their IP addresses and where are the screen captures of their shares?

Originally posted by jinjuku:She didn't download 24 songs. She shared out 24 songs and made a potential for 1000's of people to get a copy. I hope America doesn't keep producing dolt's like you.

No, she shared 24 songs and made it possible for one single entity to get a copy and that was Media Sentry. That was the only infringment she was actually accused of, that Media Sentry was able to get a copy and thats what was presented into evidence. There was no evidence that 1000's of others did so. The RIAA in a statement somewhere before the retrial made a comment that there were 'millions' of others sharing yet there was no evidence to prove that. She made them available to one entity and one entity only according the evidence and that was Media Sentry. So she did not share them with 1000's of others according to the evidence.

Only implication would indicate a possiblity for sharing with 1000's of others, and implication is not evidence.

Implication and potential does not = evidence. If it does in your mind then tell us exactly how many others got a copy other then Media Sentry and what exactly are their IP addresses and where are the screen captures of their shares?

I don't believe for a second that a jury saw it in the black and white that you present it as. I am not sure what you really expect a conviction and $220K fine, then another bite at the apple and a $1.92 million fine says about Mrs. Thomas-Rasset and her activity the precipitated all of this.

I personally would love to see artists boot the big labels. But they still need to eat. Some of my favorite artists don't tour much. So they do need to make $$ off of their CD sales.